10KW LENR Demonstrator?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

I posted the following question on his blog two days back. It appears to have been rejected by the moderator.

You can see that questions by others have come and been answered since mine.

Please feel free to reproduce the question and post it there yourselves.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 8#comments
Chris Bradley
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

May 4th, 2011 at 6:00 PM
Why do you not run a ‘null’ test before your demonstrations – for example,
i) why do you not heat the system up without hydrogen added first, and
ii) why do you not run a dummy gas through it, e.g. a Noble gas, next, and
iii) why do you not try heating a non-polar fluid through your system, like a low viscosity inert cooling oil?

best regards,

Chris MB.

Giorgio
Posts: 2742
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Kahuna wrote:OTOH, you can never conclusively say you have ruled "out ALL possible FAKES" as that is unkowable.
Consider also that the lower the Q the more difficult to test the system to remove any type of doubt.

If he kept his old system with a Q of 200 it could have been tested in an easy way and in few hours.

raphael
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:16 am
Location: TX

Post by raphael »

Giorgio, did you not intend to type "If there was a second HEATER..."

Regarding same, in the NyTecnik (sp?) video, was there not, on the control box, readouts indicating that 2 heaters were being powered?
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner

drmike
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:54 pm
Contact:

Post by drmike »

chrismb wrote:I posted the following question on his blog two days back. It appears to have been rejected by the moderator.
[...]
Chris Bradley
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

May 4th, 2011 at 6:00 PM
Why do you not run a ‘null’ test before your demonstrations – for example,
i) why do you not heat the system up without hydrogen added first, and
ii) why do you not run a dummy gas through it, e.g. a Noble gas, next, and
iii) why do you not try heating a non-polar fluid through your system, like a low viscosity inert cooling oil?

best regards,

Chris MB.
Good sign of a scam when the obvious ways to prove a fake are rejected! I have also suggested that a cooling gas such as CO2 or N2 be used instead of water - since nickel is a catalyst for hydrogen there could be a nice O2 generator between water and nickel.

One of the things that is hard about science is that you get beat up a lot - the peer review process sucks big time. But in the end, when you have answered all the possible questions everyone can think of, the science stands on its own. And if you really believe in what you are doing, you are not afraid of answering every question - sometimes even _more_ science is learned that way!

If they can't answer simple questions and actually reject them, it's clear they don't know how to hide a scam. Redirection is much more effective :-)

Dr. mike

Kahuna
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: CA

Post by Kahuna »

Giorgio wrote:
Kahuna wrote:OTOH, you can never conclusively say you have ruled "out ALL possible FAKES" as that is unkowable.
Consider also that the lower the Q the more difficult to test the system to remove any type of doubt.

If he kept his old system with a Q of 200 it could have been tested in an easy way and in few hours.
I agree completely. It would appear that safety and stability concerns have led him to the smaller Q device for the commericial application, but the closer he gets to breakeven Q, the harder it is to conclude that the reaction is real and nuclear. Its the commercial demonstration versus scientific investigation thing again. OTOH, all the devices demoed appear to perform I would certainly not keep doing them in front of the audiance he has chosen if I were running a scam. So I think he is most likley sincere in thinking he has something real. At the very least it is interesting to watch it unfold.

The skeptics seem to fall into camps:

(1) The reaction cannot be explained with existing scientific knowledge so it cannot actually be happening (e.g. there is no suitable Theory behind the E-Cat).
(2) This is "Cold Fusion" and everybody knows that Cold Fusion has been totally discredited.
(3) This is "Free Energy (or nearly so)" and there have been many Free Energy scams in the past and this is just one more.
(4) The demonstrations were (or could have) been rigged to trick the observers with hidden devices, wires, batteries, tubes, etc.
(5) The demonstrations used deficient setup, recording methods, and/or instrumentation which cold lead to measurment errors of magnitude to lead to false conclusions.

In my mind, only #5 is worth looking into at this point. And if the Q were higher, it would make measurement errors sufficient to discount the results much less likely.
Last edited by Kahuna on Fri May 06, 2011 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

My post a few ago seems to have had no impact on you.

I am not on your camp list. I am;

(X) The inventors of such a fundamental development as this e-cat morally compromise themselves if they do not approach the matter as a scientific experiment, rather than a media sound-bite.

raphael
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:16 am
Location: TX

Post by raphael »

Rossi's secret catalyst is GRAPHENE!!!

Do I have impeccable sources for this assertion?

Not really.

HOWEVER, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night....

http://www.my-discount-hotels.com/image ... -hotel.jpg
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner

cg66
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:41 pm

Post by cg66 »

I see Rossi as an engineer/tinker - not a scientist. In one scenario is he has been working since the late 90s perfecting the work Piantelli-Focardi started. It was and engineering problem to him – maximize output heat, control, safety – not an unsolved theoretical mystery. He has the mindset that he has been working with these devices for years and they work and he doesn't own anyone an explanation (even more so considering trade secrets involved).

Another scenario he is running a scam.

The problem is his response to the scientific community in either case would be similar.

BTW - the pictures of the Piantelli-Focardi devices look kind of familiar....
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2 ... g.shtml#pf

Giorgio
Posts: 2742
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

chrismb wrote:I posted the following question on his blog two days back. It appears to have been rejected by the moderator.

You can see that questions by others have come and been answered since mine.

Please feel free to reproduce the question and post it there yourselves.

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 8#comments
Chris Bradley
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

May 4th, 2011 at 6:00 PM
Why do you not run a ‘null’ test before your demonstrations – for example,
i) why do you not heat the system up without hydrogen added first, and
ii) why do you not run a dummy gas through it, e.g. a Noble gas, next, and
iii) why do you not try heating a non-polar fluid through your system, like a low viscosity inert cooling oil?

best regards,

Chris MB.
They are skipping on posts that suggests experimental setups. He stated before in a post that he was not interested in discussing experimental setup to validate his E-Cat.
By the way, the use of the thermal oil was also one of the suggestions I sent to the Swedish guys, just in case they moved the objection that the reactor chamber had to stay at a temperature higher than 100'C.
Unfortunately no reply also from them until now.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

Here is an English translation of the broadcast in Italy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzL3RIlc ... r_embedded

Giorgio
Posts: 2742
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

raphael wrote:Regarding same, in the NyTecnik (sp?) video, was there not, on the control box, readouts indicating that 2 heaters were being powered?
You are right. It actually states in the video that the control box is feeding two resistances. In this case he might actually give more power to one and less to the other while keeping total absorbed load constant.

Anyhow, even if this actually could give a meaning to the reply he gave to me I still feel that there are too many dark areas to convince me.

cg66
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:41 pm

Post by cg66 »

@tomclarke (and others)

In your opinion was the treatment of water vapor handled better in the March 29th experiment?

"The system to measure the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo System, Testo 650, with a probe guaranteed to resist up to 550°C. The measurements showed that at 11:15 1.4% of the water was non-vaporized, at 11:30 1.3% and at 11:45 1.2% of the water was non-vaporized. "

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

Axil wrote: From the last test of the Rossi reactor (Norwegian ?) in the documentation, the structure of the reactor must get to 60C before the internal heater can jumpstart the reaction.
The "Swedish Skeptic" quoted at length earlier stated 600 °C. Which is correct?

Axil
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:34 am

Post by Axil »

KitemanSA wrote:
Axil wrote: From the last test of the Rossi reactor (Norwegian ?) in the documentation, the structure of the reactor must get to 60C before the internal heater can jumpstart the reaction.
The "Swedish Skeptic" quoted at length earlier stated 600 °C. Which is correct?

Experimental test of a mini-Rossi device at the Leonardocorp, Bologna 29 March 2011.

...

Initial running to reach vaporization. The temperatures of the inlet water and the outlet water were monitored and recorded every 2 seconds. The heater was connected at 10:25 and the boiling point was reached at 10:42. The detailed temperature-time relation is shown in figure 6. The inlet water temperature was 17.3 °C and increased slightly to 17.6 °C during this initial running. The outlet water temperature increased from 20 °C at 10:27 to 60 °C at 10:36. This means a temperature increase by 40 °C in 9 minutes which is essentially due to the electric heater. It is worth noting that at this point in time and temperature, 10:36 and 60°C, the 300 W from the heater is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the flowing water from the inlet temperature of 17.6 °C to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. Instead the temperature increases faster after 10:36, as can be seen as a kink occurring at 60 °C in the temperature-time relation. (Figure 6). A temperature of 97.5 °C is reached at 10:40. The time taken to bring the water from 60 to 97.5 °C is 4 minutes. The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45 all the water is completely vaporized found by visual checks of the outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney. This means that from this point in time, 10:45, 4.69 kW power is delivered to the heating and vaporization, and 4.69 – 0.30 = 4.39 kW would have to come from the energy produced in the internal nickel-hydrogen container.

raphael
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:16 am
Location: TX

Post by raphael »

"The inventors of such a fundamental development as this e-cat morally compromise themselves if they do not approach the matter as a scientific experiment, rather than a media sound-bite."

morally compromise???

¡Ay Chihuahua!


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


http://www.aychihuahuarescue.org/index2.html
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." Chauncey Gardiner

Post Reply